Sue Webber
Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party · Scotland
“I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute, albeit briefly, to today’s debate on the legislative consent motion on the Railways Bill. As colleagues know, the bill represents a significant reshaping of how rail services and rail infrastructure will be overseen across Great Britain.”
“On the subject of public money, the entire premise of the climate plan is that the renewable investment that is outlined happens only because of subsidies from bill payers across the UK. I want to speak about transport.”
“Evidence that was considered by the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee made it clear that open-access operators remain unconvinced that the new arrangements will protect their ability to compete on a level playing field.”
“Those are sensible steps. However, our party has a long-standing commitment to a rail system that grows instead of restricts choice, competition and freight capacity, which brings me to the principal issue that prevents me from supporting the LCM today.”
“We are committed to doing what we can, particularly in relation to the EV charging network—which, as an EV driver, I know has improved dramatically in the past five years and which is set to improve even more.”
“Any framework that risks weakening that model, whether unintentionally or through lack of safeguards, must be approached with caution. Similarly, on freight, Scotland has ambitious growth aspirations, but growth depends on confidence that freight paths will be protected, that investment will be worthwhile and that decisions affecting Scot…”
The complete record
Every one of 411 lines we hold for Sue Webber, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 9.
“The plan offers little on the proposals and on how they will impact motorists. That will alarm car users at a time when the latest RAC report for 2025 shows that the cost of motoring is the top concern for UK motorists, whether they are driving an EV or a car with an internal combustion engine. The biggest challenge is the inequality in the cost of charging; it costs 9p per kilowatt hour at home and 81.2p per kilowatt hour when using public charging. The draft plan does nothing to address that inequality. I have not done speed reading, so, cabinet secretary, will you guarantee that hard-pressed motorists will not face any additional costs because of the plan? What reassurance can you give to motorists that their concerns will be listened to? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Always speak through the chair.”
“The health secretary, Mr Gray, has rightly put NHS Lothian’s maternity services into special measures, and I thank him for that critical intervention. However, what confidence can we offer our constituents that they will see real, tangible changes and improvements in safety? The BBC’s “Disclosure” programme was a heart-wrenching watch. One woman described how she was made to feel like a nuisance by the staff in her west coast maternity unit. Our maternity services must put families first and provide compassionate and empathetic care and support. They must have safe staffing levels, with staff being valued and given every opportunity to deliver the best care. After all, as I know, having worked in healthcare for nearly 30 years before I was in my current role, that is why midwives enter the profession. 16:30”
“Following the HIS inspections report last week, I asked the Scottish Government about public confidence in NHS Lothian and delivering the needed changes, because women deserve to know that their maternity services are safe, but NHS Lothian told MSPs last week that those issues would take time to resolve. Do we have time for that? Professor Hiscox said that 72 additional midwives will be working by the end of the year, with 30 in position to meet basic legal requirements. That is a staggering admission of previous failures, and it exposes how much inequality there is in women’s health provision, because it is hard to imagine any other service being allowed to deteriorate in that way. It should never have got to the situation where undercover investigations and inspections were needed.”
“That does not fully explain the “Everything is in hand” message that I was given in June, nor does it give me any faith that the assurances that were given in the wake of the revelations can be trusted. HIS’s unannounced inspection of the Royal infirmary of Edinburgh revealed a culture of mistrust and staffing shortages that led to delays in the induction of labour process of up to 29 hours. The inspectors also found frustration with staffing levels, which presented a safety risk. Staff were overwhelmed, unsupported and not listened to. There was a reluctance to submit incident reports, and staff described a culture of mistrust.”
“However, three days later, there was an unannounced inspection at the unit by HIS, which revealed how much work was still needed. The depth of the problems that were revealed in the BBC investigation last year—mums and newborn babies coming to harm because of the poor culture and staffing situation in the unit—was such that an instantaneous reversal was improbable. However, the reality is that it has taken an unannounced inspection to confirm that nothing has changed. After many reassurances that the issues were in hand and would improve, I was shocked by the damning inspection into maternity services at the royal infirmary. We now know from the publication of the HIS report last week that it is still in the grip of a crisis.”
“It has been well over a year since an employee at the Royal infirmary of Edinburgh blew the whistle about conditions in the maternity unit there, and nearly a year since the subsequent investigation revealed staff shortages and a toxic management culture. In August 2024, new mother Louise Williamson spoke out about her horrific labour, when she was repeatedly ignored. In December, NHS Lothian said that action had been taken. The report that was uncovered by the BBC last December upheld, or partially upheld, 17 concerns about safety, and NHS Lothian claimed that work was under way to improve patient safety and the working environment and culture. On 20 June this year, I was among a group of MSPs and MPs who were told in a health authority briefing that the culture was being fixed.”
“Sue Webber: It was “three to five”, as in a dash—not the number two, but the letters T and O. You had the choice of three, four or five. Ninewells hospital in Dundee, Princess royal maternity hospital in Glasgow, Wishaw general hospital in Wishaw, Victoria hospital in Kirkcaldy and Crosshouse hospital in Kilmarnock have all been downgraded under these plans. At least 22,100 people across Scotland have signed a petition to the Scottish Parliament protesting the plans, but the SNP does not listen. I could continue to list SNP failures across the country, but I want to focus on NHS Lothian in my region.”
“Journeys that I have made on numerous occasions in my life before coming to Parliament—from Raigmore hospital to Caithness general hospital, or from Dr Gray’s hospital to Aberdeen royal infirmary—are challenging to drive at the best of times, never mind when an expectant father is driving his pregnant partner, with all the pressure that that entails, yet the SNP plans to cut the number of neonatal intensive care units from eight to three. Why three and not five? That would force families to travel to Glasgow, Edinburgh or Aberdeen in order to seek treatment for the most pre-term and most sick babies. Neil Gray: Sue Webber asked why three and not five units. That is because that was the direct recommendation of “The Best Start”, which recommended moving to three units within five years.”
“It is a fact that there are huge inequalities when it comes to women’s health. Today, we are considering the failings of one critical element in women’s health— the state of our maternity services in Scotland. The failings in our maternity services have not happened overnight. They are a symptom of years of mismanagement, neglect and lack of investment. The NHS in Scotland has been under SNP management for circa 20 years, and it is a grim fact that maternity services continue to fail women and families across Scotland. Like many others, I believe that its plans to cut the number of neonatal intensive care units are dangerous. Women in rural areas are already forced to travel long distances to give birth, thanks to the downgrading of local maternity units across Scotland.”
“I need to hear, in the Government’s closing speech, a very clear steer that it will be asking how the national investigation will take place, not whether it will take place. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to the open debate. 15:45”
“What I need to hear from the Scottish Government—and what it needs to be clear about when it asks the chamber to vote for its amendment—is its intention in framing a national investigation. Yes, there is a legitimate question about its scope—whether it covers maternity services as well as neonatal services or whether it focuses on maternity services—but there are also questions about how the clinical advice that is being sought by Government informs the decision about how a national investigation would take place. Fundamentally, that is what I want to hear about from the Government, including from the minister, who will chair the task force. In chairing that task force and taking forward that discussion, will her role be to define how that national investigation takes place, or will she be asking whether it should take place?”
“Will the member take an intervention? Patrick Harvie: I think that I have time for one intervention. Sue Webber: Lothian MSPs—including your colleague Lorna Slater—received a briefing in September that spoke of training on culture that was provided to NHS Lothian staff in May 2025. However, in June, when the HIS inspection took place, we heard that nothing had changed. How can we, as elected members, have any confidence that we are not being taken for fools by some of these people? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Always speak through the chair. Patrick Harvie: I spoke briefly about the Lothian situation, but I have now moved on to discussing the call for a national investigation.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill to determine whether there could be any unintended consequences. (S6O-05090)”
“One of the issues—and the reason why I want to break the logjam to make sure that we have the purchase—is about the distribution of investment that can come from the current private owner, the council and the Government. Some of that scoping work has been done. The member may not be familiar with the Irish berth and other aspects but, in relation to their development, more substantial work may need to be done, and whether that can all be done at the same time is part of the assessment. Once the purchase is concluded, it will enable CMAL to have a more direct assessment of what is needed for that improvement. Rural Community Transport 3.”
“It was reported three weeks ago that the Scottish Government had agreed a price with Peel Ports for the sale of Ardrossan harbour. However, what analysis has the cabinet secretary undertaken to gauge how much additional investment will be required after the sale goes through to modernise the harbour to ensure that ferries can—finally—sail from Ardrossan again? Fiona Hyslop: The member might not be aware of this, but the Ardrossan harbour task force worked to ensure that there is an understanding of what is required in terms of development. There are short-term measures that will need to be taken as well as the longer-term measures, and those were set out.”
“Portfolio Question Time Climate Action and Energy, and Transport 14:09 Glasgow to Kilmarnock Rail Service 1.”
“That the Parliament agrees that the Scottish Parliament (Disqualification of Members of the House of Lords) Regulations 2025 [draft] be approved. That the Parliament agrees that the Revenue Scotland and Tax Powers Act (Postponement of Tax Pending a Review or Appeal) Amendment Regulations 2025 [draft] be approved. That the Parliament agrees that the Free-Range Poultrymeat Marketing Standards (Amendment) (Scotland) Regulations 2025 [draft] be approved. That the Parliament agrees that the Revenue Scotland and Tax Powers Act (Record Keeping) Amendment Regulations 2025 [draft] be approved. That the Parliament agrees that, for the purposes of consideration of the second supplementary legislative consent memorandum on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, Rule 9B.3.5 of Standing Orders is suspended.”
“As no member objects, the question is, that motions S6M-19443 to S6M-19450, on approval of SSIs, and motion S6M-19451, on suspension of standing orders, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, be agreed to. Motions agreed to, That the Parliament agrees that the Scottish Aggregates Tax (Administration) Regulations 2025 [draft] be approved. That the Parliament agrees that the Scottish Parliament (Disqualification of Councillors) Regulations 2025 [draft] be approved. That the Parliament agrees that the Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2025 [draft] be approved. That the Parliament agrees that the Scottish Parliament (Disqualification of Members of the House of Commons) Regulations 2025 [draft] be approved.”
“Will the member take an intervention? Graham Simpson: I will. Sue Webber: Mr Simpson, will you comment on the provisions that now make it clear that councillors should give up their allowances when they are in those dual roles? Could you also refer to and comment on your position? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Always speak through the chair. Graham Simpson: The regulations on councillors say that, if an MSP remains a councillor, their pay will be deducted by the same amount as their councillor pay—unless they receive extra pay as a councillor. As I said, I fully support all three sets of regulations. They are sensible and will have public approval, and I commend them to members. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Simpson. I propose to ask a single question on the nine Parliamentary Bureau motions.”
“The HIS report explicitly goes into detail about the improvements that have been made in maternity triage processes, which have improved and have been given a good score. However, as I set out in my statement, I share the concern about the pace of progress. That is why NHS Lothian has been escalated to level 3 of the NHS support and intervention framework for its maternity services—it is because I share the concern that the member outlines about the speed of progress. To provide Sue Webber, her constituents and other members across the chamber with reassurance about the completion of all the recommendations, that is also why I will be meeting the chief executive of NHS Lothian by the end of November to ensure that that progress is being made.”
“We have known about these issues for more than a year. In August 2024, new mother Louise Williamson spoke about her “horrific” labour after she was “repeatedly ignored”. In December, in a verbal briefing given to Lothian MSPs and MPs on women’s services concerns, NHS Lothian advised that action was under way. Further assurances on progress were given to the same group on 20 June 2025, yet, three days later, on 23 June, an unannounced HIS inspection confirmed that nothing had changed. Women deserve to know that their maternity services are safe. Today, NHS Lothian told MSPs that the issues “will take time to resolve.” What confidence can families have that, this time, there will be real, tangible changes? Neil Gray: It is not true to say that nothing has changed.”
“We must learn one thing this afternoon: by not voting to support Douglas Ross’s bill, the Government is standing in the way of saving lives, and I am absolutely devastated that that is the position that it is choosing to take. 16:02”
“The Scottish Government says that those beds will treat 1,000 people. However, the reality is that, for those 150 beds to treat 1,000 people, they can be used by each individual only for six weeks; yet, time and again, I remind members that six weeks does not provide rehabilitation—six weeks is needed for detoxification and stabilisation alone. It is not the solution. That is the harsh reality, so members must support the bill today and, if they cannot, they must ask themselves why. Instead of investing in recovery, the SNP continues to advocate decriminalisation. We heard more of that from Patrick Harvie, too. The bill has been drawn up alongside people with lived experience and experts in the field of addiction. It would be a game changer if the members in the chamber who do not plan to back it would wake up.”
“Sue Webber: I do not think that I can, Mr Cole- Hamilton, as I have very limited time. I am not sure. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There is limited time. It is up to the member. Sue Webber: I want services to be underpinned by prescription programmes, detoxification and rehabilitation services. That is what is laid out in the Right to Addiction Recovery (Scotland) Bill, and that is what needs to be part of the solution. Another hard truth is that Scotland has a far lower number of residential rehabilitation treatment spaces than the European Union average. Ms Baillie gave us the statistics on that today. The latest data shows that there are still only 513 such beds in Scotland. From experience, I know that, later on, someone in the chamber will say that we have another 150 rehabilitation beds, which we should be celebrating.”
“To say that I have reservations about the effectiveness of drug consumption rooms would be an understatement, and I, for one, do not want to see them spread across the country in any way, shape or form—certainly not in the capital city of Edinburgh. Annie Wells: I wonder whether you could explain the situation a wee bit more to me. The people you and I speak to surely just want their family members or loved ones to get the help and support that they need to be better. So, is the Thistle delivering or not? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Always speak through the chair. Sue Webber: I do not think that the Thistle is delivering. Indeed, Annemarie Ward from FAVOR has said that the safe consumption rooms— Alex Cole-Hamilton: Will Sue Webber take an intervention?”
“Only one in three ADPs agree that the Scottish Government is showing effective leadership on the national mission. The SNP Government has failed to make a serious dent in the appalling drug death toll. Its solution—its silver bullet—was the Thistle, a drug consumption room in Glasgow. That was used for years as a constitutional excuse for the number of drug deaths being so high in Scotland. A reported 7,000 people have been using the drug consumption room—Jackie Baillie spoke about the statistics in more detail. That room has cost £2.3 million, but not one person has been signposted to a rehabilitation service. We were promised that people would be, which was one of the reasons why the Conservatives supported the pilot. We were misled.”
“In 2020 alone, 602 children lost a parent or a parental figure because of a drug death. The number of alcohol-specific deaths, having increased by 16 per cent since 2019, is above 1,000 for the 12th year in a row. Kirsten Horsburgh, the chief executive officer of the Scottish Drugs Forum, blamed the SNP’s cuts for increasing drug deaths. Alcohol and drug partnerships, which tackle drug and alcohol misuse at the local level, say that they are underfunded and have no confidence in the SNP Government’s leadership—I agree. Seventy-two per cent of ADPs said that they do not receive enough funding to deliver the national mission of reducing the number of drug deaths. Audit Scotland said that an 8 per cent real-terms reduction in funding over the past two years means that ADPs are having to find ways to do more with fewer resources.”
“We can all agree that each and every drug or alcohol death is a tragedy, and there can be no doubt that our drug deaths crisis is an emergency—I will not be able to speak with the emotion that Annie Wells has shown this afternoon. Scotland still, for the seventh year in a row, has the highest drug deaths rate in Europe. During that time, more than 8,300 people have lost their lives, leaving behind grieving families and friends. The most recent UK-wide data available shows that Scotland’s drug death rate is nearly three times that in England and Northern Ireland, and 1.9 times higher than that in Wales. People in the most deprived areas of Scotland are 12 times more likely to die of drug misuse than people in the least deprived areas. That is an utter shame.”
“I thank my colleague Douglas Ross, the non-Government bills unit, Annemarie Ward, Stevie Wishart and all the other groups and individuals who have helped to bring the bill before the Parliament today. I give a call-out to Annemarie and Stevie for, during the short period when I was the shadow minister for drugs and alcohol policy, steering me through some of the landscape that I was unfamiliar with. Under the SNP, drug-related deaths have spiralled out of control; the number of drug deaths in Scotland has more than doubled since it came to power. The current strategies to help those who are struggling with addiction have failed and are still failing. It is not about language; it is about saving lives. Even Nicola Sturgeon has admitted that the SNP took its “eye off the ball” on drug deaths and that, as a Government, it got things wrong.”
“It is incumbent on those in the chamber to ensure that any legislation that it considers in the area makes a real difference and does not inadvertently create additional barriers to treatment and recovery for service users or place additional unnecessary strain on service providers. However the chamber decides to vote today, I welcome the robust debate that Douglas Ross’s bill has prompted, and I look forward to continuing to work collaboratively and constructively with colleagues to help tackle the on-going public health crisis that has plagued our communities for far too long.”
“The committee heard about the significant strain that those working in drug and alcohol services are currently under, and related concerns about the knock-on impact that staffing requirements associated with the bill might have on the workforce, including on recruitment to multidisciplinary roles. My committee fully recognises the need for concerted action to address the public health crisis that the country continues to face in relation to drug and alcohol harms. However, after careful and considered scrutiny, a majority of members have been unable to recommend that the general principles of the bill be agreed to. This is a serious topic that requires careful and considered policy approaches to save lives.”
“I thank Clare Haughey for taking an intervention. Would she not concede that, right now, the Scottish Government’s focus is on harm reduction and that there is not enough focus on providing the rehabilitation and recovery that the bill would allow us to provide? Clare Haughey: I remind Ms Webber that I am speaking on behalf of the committee—not on behalf of my party and not on behalf of the Scottish Government. However, in her opening speech, the minister set out some of the work that the Government is doing, which includes increasing the number of rehabilitation beds and services.”
“Maree Todd: I absolutely acknowledge the willingness of the member in charge to amend the bill, but the committee concluded that the bill would need fundamental revision, and many stakeholders, including clinicians, legal experts and service providers, have raised concerns about its feasibility even with a significant number of amendments. I also recognise a key argument that has been advanced by the member in charge, which is the need to give the bill a fair hearing and to enable it to progress to stage 2.”
“Everything that the minister is articulating can and should be addressed at future stages of the process. Therefore, surely the best approach would be for the Government to allow the bill to go ahead. It does not have to vote for the bill, although I would love it to do that. The Government could abstain tonight to allow us to make changes, sort out the issues and keep discussing this most important issue for Scotland. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I can give you the time back, minister, for taking interventions.”
“Will the minister take an intervention? Maree Todd: If the member will let me continue, I will set out our concerns about the legislation. The committee’s report outlines fundamental flaws in the legislation, from affordability and deliverability to the tension between the bill’s principles and the evidence-based public health harm reduction approach, which we now know saves lives. The report also highlights the risks of overmedicalising care and deprioritising trauma- informed holistic support. Douglas Ross: The committee heard from a number of people who were opposed to the bill. I made the point to the committee that 80 per cent of those who responded to the call for views were supportive of the bill but that that was not reflected at the committee stage.”
“Obviously, the situation that we were in last December, which went on for some months after that, was extremely difficult, but we have taken the necessary steps and action. We are now in a much better place— today, 11 secure places are available, and a range around that number has been available for the past couple of months. I have set out how we plan to re-envision that provision for the future in order to future proof it. I take heed of Ms Webber’s comments and thank her for bringing those matters to my attention.”
“The minister said that “we are laying the foundations for a more sustainable and resilient system for the future”, following the challenges that were experienced earlier this year. I welcome some of the announcements that she has made today. However, when I was convener of the Education, Children and Young People Committee, I warned the minister of the very issues that we are discussing today 30 months ago, back in June 2023. In its stage 1 report on the Children (Care and Justice) (Scotland) Bill, the committee made it clear that capacity was a significant concern. Why did the minister not heed those warnings 30 months ago and act then? Natalie Don-Innes: As I set out in my statement and as The Promise Scotland has made clear, we do not want to have overcapacity.”
“Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention? Craig Hoy: Will the cabinet secretary stop grandstanding and take an intervention? Màiri McAllan: All of that is happening to the extent that what we once knew as bigotry is being defended as free speech. The SNP knows what it is, we recognise what it is, and we will call it what it is. It is prejudice. It is intolerance. It is racism. [Interruption.]”
“Siobhian Brown: I hope that the member appreciates that ministers have met members several times this year to tackle the issue. The issue is not being ignored. Police Scotland has a record £1.64 billion in its budget this year. As I said to Mr Doris, Police Scotland is doing on-going work on the confiscation of vehicles, and I hope that we will be able to update you at the next meeting. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Always speak through the chair. The member who was due to ask question 5 is not present. Prison Overcrowding (Suicide and Self-harm Prevention) 6.”
“In response to my recent parliamentary question, in which I highlighted the criminality associated with e-bike use, the minister stated: “Police Scotland is keeping its approach to the illegal use of e-bikes and e-scooters under review.”—[Official Report, 17 September 2025; c 18.] That does not help the victims of crime; it brings no confidence to communities that are plagued by these thieves; and neither does it say that we are serious about cracking down on the criminals or the antisocial behaviour associated with the use of e-bikes. I am respectful of the answer that the minister has just provided to Mr Doris, but will the Scottish Government finally provide the resources, guidance and training that Police Scotland needs to allow it to crack down on this sort of crime?”
“However, I am less convinced about whether the bill is the appropriate place to deal with that issue. Christine Grahame: Will the member take an intervention? Maurice Golden: I am happy to.”
“Although such a bill will not be for this parliamentary session, it should, in my view, be a Government bill in the next session. Mark Ruskell pointed out that the current legal framework is inadequate. Christine Grahame thoroughly agrees with making dog theft a statutory offence and agrees with my colleague Rachael Hamilton’s view on working dogs. Rachael Hamilton highlighted the case of Border terriers Beetle and Ruby, which were stolen and whose families are still holding out for their return. Emma Harper highlighted the importance of data collection. Richard Leonard supported the bill on the basis of compassion and decency. Elena Whitham brought something new to the debate that I am very sympathetic to, which was about dogs being weaponised as part of a coercive relationship.”
“We know how important countryside sports—which rely on working dogs—are to the economy. It would be foolhardy not to include them in the bill. Maurice Golden: We can have that debate at stage 2. I think that there is a difference between a working dog and an assistance dog, but I hear Rachael Hamilton’s case. Jamie Halcro Johnston, whose dog was a medallist in the Holyrood dog of the year competition, described dog theft as “an abhorrent crime”, highlighting the horrifying cruelty facing dogs that are stolen. Rhoda Grant described the lucrative trade of stolen dogs and outlined the heartbreak that families experience. She also suggested—I agree with her—that a comprehensive bill should be introduced that covers dog ownership and wider animal welfare.”
“Secondly, I also agree with the substantive point about publicising the bill, if it becomes law. I am sure that lots of members in the new session of Parliament will be willing to pose with their prized pooches for that purpose. I hear and have looked at the argument about working dogs, but I am not convinced that there is a clear case for extending the bill to cover them. The existing aggravation in the bill is there to ensure that people who are unable to carry out day-to-day tasks—including reporting a crime, potentially—without the support of an assistance dog should receive additional protection in law. Rachael Hamilton: I understand Maurice Golden’s point about assistance dogs. In a way, a working dog is an assistance dog, for example, to a country keeper on a working shoot. Country keepers employ many people.”
“I will cover some of the ideas that have been raised in the excellent speeches that were made during the debate. I am pleased that members are taking the bill so seriously and are coming up with constructive suggestions to improve it. The minister, who is a dog lover, recognises the seriousness of the crime and highlighted concerns around victim statements and annual reporting. I am pleased that we have agreed a path forward on those points, which is now on the record, in the Official Report. The lead committee and its convener, Finlay Carson, mentioned two issues that I will highlight. The first is on awareness raising. I agree with his point, but I would suggest that the issue be covered in something that is linked to the bill rather than codified in primary legislation.”
“As I indicated in my opening speech, there are areas that I am happy to look at and where I will lodge amendments, for example to remove the requirement for a victim statement. I have also agreed to work with the minister to look at the particular definition of assistance dogs and at the provisions for annual reporting and reviews. Furthermore, I commit to on-going discussions to ensure that the bill is in the best possible position to become an act. I look forward to doing that in advance of stage 2 proceedings. I will draw together a set of amendments that the entire committee, ideally, will be able to agree on. In addition to working with the Scottish Government, including with the minister, with whom I have worked very productively, I am very willing to meet other members who might have ideas for amendments.”
“If Parliament agrees today to the general principles of the bill, I look forward to working with Mr Golden at stage 2 to ensure that amendments are made so that the Scottish Government can continue its support for the bill to stage 3. 16:43 Maurice Golden: I thank all members for their speeches. It has been a good debate. I welcome the level of engagement on the issue, and with the bill, from members across the chamber. I also welcome the positive tone of the debate and the fact that many members have indicated their support for the general principles of the bill. I recognise that members, including the committee convener and the minister, have highlighted particular areas where they consider that the bill should be amended.”
“I had a conversation with Maurice Golden last week and welcome his commitment to lodge amendments at stage 2 to ensure that appropriate coverage is achieved for the aggravation so that it includes dogs that provide assistance to support their owners. That is a necessary part of the Scottish Government’s support for the bill and I ask Maurice Golden when closing the debate to provide confirmation that he will take that action. Dogs are vital and much-loved members of our families. If they are lost in any way, including as a result of theft, that brings grief to their owners and leaves a hole in those families. I hope that, by supporting the new dog theft offence, I am showing that the Scottish Government takes the issue seriously.”
“I turn to the request for the definition of “assistance dog” to be widened. I understand that the SSPCA previously provided the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee with a research paper on defining the terms that are used for animals working in support roles. I am aware that the committee had concerns about the definition of assistance dogs. In particular, the issue might be that not all dogs that provide assistance and support for their owners would be covered. Although the bill includes an enabling power that allows for changes to the definition, that would create an issue for the Scottish Government to address further down the line.”
“I am happy to take that idea away and consider it. As I appreciate that all of our pets are loved, I now move on to the topic of cat theft. The common-law offence of theft offers robust protection, including for pets, with a maximum penalty that goes all the way up to a life sentence for cases that are tried in the High Court. I listened to what Finlay Carson said about the evidence that the committee took regarding opening the bill up to other pets. A number of members have made valid points about the consolidation of legislation. We are all aware that we do not have any time in this session of Parliament due to the amount of legislation that we are trying to pass during the next several months, but I definitely think that that should be dealt with in the next session.”