Paul O'Kane
Scottish Labour · Scotland
“It is clear that any ban on phones will have to involve young people. They will have to help to co-design it and they will have to be at the heart of how we implement it—we should not forget that in the debate. There are already myriad discussions about how we might do that.”
“That is why we have advocated for a national charter on behaviour and standards and national leadership on discipline in schools, to empower headteachers to set out consequences, look at the issue of community partners such as campus cops and restore the relationships that now do not exist in many local authorities.”
“I am pleased to contribute to the debate, and in doing so, I thank Pam Gosal for bringing the issue to the chamber, and I wish her well. Pam was one of the first MSPs I met when I was elected to this place; we were in the same little group on the first day.”
“I am sure that many of us who watched the first day of proceedings in 1999 never thought that we would sit in the chamber and help to form the next part of the story of the Scottish Parliament.”
“Her work with me and others across committees on drug deaths and drug harms was very important. I hope that we will all continue to focus on that in the next session of Parliament. She can be assured that her contribution in that space is very valued. I also pay tribute to you, Deputy Presiding Officer.”
“Given that it is the last day of the parliamentary session and that we are about to enter an election period, colleagues will expect some politics from me. It is clear that the Government has failed to grip these issues during this session.”
The complete record
Every one of 463 lines we hold for Paul O'Kane, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 10.
“The UK Government has given in-principle agreement to take forward a section 104 order to make consequential provision for individuals and practitioners to opt out of participating in assisted dying and to provide appropriate employment protections. Should the bill pass, the Scottish Government will continue to engage closely with the UK Government on the form that the section 104 order will take. I appreciate that many members and medical stakeholders would have had a strong preference for these matters to have been addressed ahead of the final vote on the bill, just as the matters relating to approved substances and medical devices for use in assisted death have been enabled by a section 30 order. Mr Hepburn and others have, understandably, made that point.”
“I make it clear to members and to those who have raised concerns that the removal of these provisions does not mean that the matter cannot or will not be addressed. As we have said before, it is the Scottish Government’s view that section 18 of the bill may relate to the H1 employment reservation and, as such, the section should be removed from the bill because it may, in our view, be outwith the legislative competence of this Parliament. The Scottish Government has been engaging constructively with the UK Government on the matter, and it is our intent to seek to resolve these matters, should the bill pass, via a section 104 order.”
“All I know is that, regardless, Parliament will, at that point, have the final say and the power of veto through the commencement regulations. Neil Gray: The Scottish Government has some significant concerns about amendments in this group in so far as they relate to reserved matters or novel issues in our legal system. I will come to those, but I start with Mr McArthur’s amendment 107, which seeks to remove section 18 from the bill. I very much understand the sensitivities around this amendment and I, too, have received correspondence and representation from medical professionals who are deeply concerned about what the removal of this section would mean for their ability to object to participation in an assisted death.”
“Ross Greer: That is a fair question, but I do not know the answer to it—in truth, I do not think that anyone in the Parliament does. What gives me comfort is that, before the system can commence, the Parliament will have to approve commencement regulations. If we agree to amendments 107, 133 and either 133A or 133B, the system cannot commence without all these protections: the no-detriment protection, the no- duty-to-participate provision and minimum standards for training, qualifications and experience. I cannot say when that will happen, and it is completely unsatisfactory that the current devolved settlement leaves us in this situation. I do not know whether it will happen in the first year of the next session of Parliament, or the last year, or even in a session of Parliament beyond that.”
“Critically, should amendment 133 and either amendment 133A or amendment 133B be agreed to, the provisions in the bill will not be commenced until training, qualification and experience requirements are set out for professionals who choose to be involved. If that combination of amendments is not agreed to, I will reflect carefully before the final vote. I ask members to support amendments 107 and 133. Martin Whitfield: I agree in large part with Ross Greer’s thesis about the amendments. I pose this question to him, and to others. How long does he envisage that it will take for the bill, if it passes, to come into force so that people see its results? There is a disjoint between the expectation of what might happen when the bill is voted on next Tuesday and when its provisions will come in.”
“As I said, I worked with Liam McArthur to ensure that amendment 133 specifies in advance that the section 104 order covers the option not to participate and the no-detriment provision, if they are appropriate. I ask members who are concerned about what amendment 107 would remove to support it on the basis that amendment 133 and—once we get to them—amendments 133A or 133B provide alternative options. Agreeing to amendment 133 will ensure that the bill is legislatively competent. No assisted dying system will commence without professionals having the option to opt out and being protected from any detriment if they do opt out.”
“I ask the cabinet secretary to clarify, when we reach group 5, why the Scottish Government believes that training is outwith competence, given the mismatch in the wording that is used. I support amendment 107 without enthusiasm, because it is necessary. Our final decision on the bill should be based on the ethical questions concerned, not on questions of legislative competence, but it is a hard balance to strike. The more that we take out of the bill in order to ensure legislative competence, the more detail about the operation of the system and its safeguards we put beyond the bill and leave unanswered—for now. There are some mitigations against that.”
“That suggests that the UK Government has previously agreed that the Parliament has the power to set up equivalent professional registers. I am keen to hear from the Scottish Government—or whether it can relay from the UK Government—why that is not within devolved competency. We will come to the wider questions about training, qualifications and experience when we reach group 5, but I want to briefly cover how amendments 107 and 133 in this group interact with my amendments 133A and 133B in group 5. As I said to the cabinet secretary at the start of the debate, the UK Government’s letter refers to “qualifications and experience” and “training, qualifications and experience” interchangeably.”
“However, I am frustrated that even though the competence issues in relation to poison control and conscientious objection were aired well ahead of time—certainly well ahead of the stage 3 lodging deadline—the apparent need to remove all training, qualification and experience requirements emerged at the very last minute. It was too late for many members to alter their amendments in this group so that they were compatible with the new reality. I ask the cabinet secretary to provide clarity in response to the points that Miles Briggs and Jackie Baillie made in relation to the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003. I do not claim that my research is perfect, but my understanding is that that act required a section 104 order, but not for the register that is being used as the precedent in this case.”
“At that point, the UK Government had still not sent the letter to the Scottish Affairs Committee. The letter was published this morning and has been quoted several times in the debate. I will read one line of it. It says: “This in-principle agreement is in relation to employment protections and professional qualifications and experience.” The details of that are to be confirmed later. On the duty to participate, the letter from the UK Government at least provides reassurance that no-duty and no-detriment provisions will be in place for those who opt out.”
“In his letter to the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee last Thursday, the cabinet secretary said that the Scottish Government had received an “in-principle commitment to a Section 104 Order” from the UK Government on 3 March, which was after the deadline for lodging amendments at stage 3, and that a letter from the UK Government confirming that would go to Westminster’s Scottish Affairs Committee “in the coming days”. Last night, I wrote to the cabinet secretary, to Liam McArthur and to the non-Government bills unit to say that although I was not calling into question the information that the cabinet secretary provided, the Parliament cannot be expected to make an informed decision on such a fundamental issue based on second-hand information.”
“Kate Forbes: I agree with what Ross Greer says about the democratic deficit. As Daniel Johnson said, we are dealing with profound moral issues. We will be passing a bill and but then leaving it to our workforce—to our doctors and nurses—to actually implement it and have challenging conversations with patients. There is a deficit between us passing the bill and someone else being responsible for bringing in protections for the workforce. Does Mr Greer feel that big chasm between those responsibilities? Ross Greer: I am grateful for the intervention because I am acutely aware of that gap, although I think that we can bridge it to an extent because of the way that amendments 133, 133A and 133B interact. I will come on to that. I want to talk briefly about how we reached this point.”
“I was working on a similar amendment and am grateful to Liam McArthur for engaging with me and reflecting my feedback in his drafting, particularly given the direct feedback that I have received from many GPs in my region. That position would set the bill within the confines of the Scotland Act 1998, but I still do not think that we are in a satisfactory situation, because we are debating a bill that effectively has a gap in it and are being asked to trust that that gap will be filled by the UK Government. I do not intend to bring our usual constitutional politics into this, but it seems obvious to me that, if this Parliament and Government are making arrangements for, and deciding whether to introduce, a system for assisted dying, it should be for this Parliament and Government to decide the specifics of those arrangements.”
“We have heard the view of the member in charge and the Scottish Government that we need to remove the protections for those who do not participate and then rely on a section 104 order, or the like, to reinsert those protections. I support the approach taken in amendment 133, which makes the commencement of the bill effectively conditional on the UK Government reinserting the protections, and I welcome the fact that amendment 133 would mean that there was no duty to participate and no detriment. For anyone who is watching at home and is concerned, that effectively means that the bill cannot come into force and that the system cannot begin without those protections being put in place.”
“It would be to the detriment of this country if we did not have that rich variety of care that allows people to choose a setting that is right for them, in line with their beliefs and with the ways in which they want to live the latter stages of their life and to have their death. Ross Greer: I will speak in support of amendments 107 and 133 from Liam McArthur. In particular, I will speak to amendment 133 because I have amendments to that amendment, although those will debated in a later group. It is not that I lack support for the substance and intended outcome of other amendments in the group, but there are concerns about the legislative competence of many of them—I will come back to that.”
“Rather than debating the issues either in a broad, academic context or in a vacuum, we must look at where there has been delivery of services for older people, those with disabilities, and those who are at the end of life or are particularly vulnerable. Those services have existed in Scotland for many years and the legislation would have an impact on them. It would affect the practical application of their services and whether they would be able to continue delivering them and, as many members have pointed out, might also affect whether they would be able to exist at all.”
“I have issues with that position. Mr O’Kane, your amendment is silent on that. If, in line with your amendment, an organisation did not involve itself in assisted dying, would it somehow compassionately signpost vulnerable people, or at least make them aware of where they could seek assisted dying? The Presiding Officer: I remind members always to speak through the chair. Paul O’Kane: I accept that my amendment 232 is drafted more broadly than others, and that it is not specific in the ways that Mr Doris outlines. My sense of the ethos and charism of those organisations tells me that they would compassionately signpost people, but whether we can legislate for that is an issue for wider debate than the one on the competing amendments that we are having today. That is my view, knowing the organisations as I do. I am conscious of time.”
“More than 160 years of work in this country may be at risk because of the way in which the legislation has been drafted. The funding of such organisations is also largely dependent on the provision of social care through acts of this Parliament, which gives them the funding that is required to do so. Removing that funding would make them financially unviable, even if they were to choose to continue in some form. Members have referred to other examples of places in which legislation on assisted dying has been passed, after which religious groups have found it hard to operate. 18:30 Bob Doris: I have some sympathy for Paul O’Kane’s amendment 232 and would distinguish it from Mr Marra’s and Mr Balfour’s amendments with a similar policy intent, which are both very clear that organisations would not have to signpost people to others.”
“Michael Marra: Does Mr O’Kane recognise that what Mr McArthur and Mr Greer said is a fallacy, because such institutions would not exist in those circumstances? They would close, because the Catholic Church would not operate care homes in such circumstances without an institutional opt- out. As a result, it would close and remove the facilities that are currently available to communities across Scotland. Paul O’Kane: Mr Marra is helpfully moving me on to that point, which I will move to now in the interest of time. There is serious concern in the Catholic Church in Scotland that those organisations would cease to exist. As I said in my opening remarks, the Little Sisters of the Poor have cared for people in this country since 1863.”
“It would not be unusual for there to be a considered and compassionate approach to such circumstances and to ensure that appropriate alternative provision can be considered. Michael Marra: Will the member take an intervention? Paul O’Kane: I will finish this point and then give way to Mr Marra. Principally, when somebody inquires about assisted dying in the kind of setting that I am talking about—for example, the care homes of the Little Sisters of the Poor—the sisters will be placed in the position of needing to decide what is right by the law and what is right in order to give that person the best support possible, when they cannot, in good conscience, refer them to or reflect their wishes on assisted dying.”
“Liam McArthur: I have been listening to Paul O’Kane’s points with interest and some sympathy. However, the point was made earlier that an individual’s view on whether they would seek to access the option of assisted dying might change over time. There are people who might find themselves entirely willing to sign up to whatever the restrictions are in the home or the hospice that they are going into, but, in due course, there would not be the flexibility to respect a change in that position. Nor would there be the flexibility to manage such situations in circumstances in which a variety of views are held among a wider hospice community. Paul O’Kane: I recognise that that can be the case.”
“Needing to offer assisted dying through health and social care frameworks, or to advertise or undertake any of the discussions that might be required through the health and social care partnership, would therefore be in direct conflict with the charism and the ethos of such an organisation and the vows to which the sisters have committed themselves. In such a situation, an opt-out for that organisation would clearly be required. We need to ensure that, at the outset of someone choosing a care home or a hospice facility, they know what the ethos, direction and view on assisted dying in that facility will be. It rather misses the point to say that someone would need to leave that facility and find another in a short space of time; that would not be true if it were clear who was opting out and who was opting in.”
“The Little Sisters of the Poor order has care homes in Greenock, in my region, and it has a presence in the city of Glasgow. It also had a presence in places such as Dundee and Edinburgh from about 1863 until recently. The religious order provides such care within its charism, which means that the entire delivery of that care is in line with the vows that its religious sisters have taken. We cannot decouple the two things. The administration and running of the care homes are done by religious sisters—for example, the registered manager of Holy Rosary care home in Greenock is a religious sister—so it is not as though those two things are entirely separate and set apart; they are interwoven and interlinked.”
“That is not to do a disservice to the Salvation Army’s excellent work, though. Instead, it would be really useful—both this evening and throughout our remaining consideration of the bill—to deal with clear examples of where there would be significant challenges and problems, rather than deal in broad concepts that lead to comments such as those Mr Greer made about people being left to die in car parks. I really do not think that that is helpful. We need to focus on what actually happens in practice just now and on where the potential pitfalls might be. We can consider a clear example in the religious orders of the Roman Catholic Church that deliver social care, which they have done for centuries. To use the example of the Little Sisters of the Poor, such provision has happened in Scotland in various ways for well over 160 years.”
“My amendments in this group are in the vein of other amendments on organisational opt-out. I accord with much of what has already been said about individual opt-out for medical professionals, not least doctors—which we have covered and will cover further—and about organisational opt-out, which is particularly important for organisations that hold a certain ethos, which is usually based on faith. I followed the debate on this aspect at stage 2, when Stuart McMillan lodged amendments that were co-designed with the Salvation Army, which has been referred to again this evening. Exchanges in the stage 2 debate on this aspect and on the services that the Salvation Army runs are perhaps not the best examples for trying to understand what we are talking about here—the need for an organisational opt-out.”
“Those approaches are important, and expanding those opportunities to local charities and community groups could be a game changer for them in terms of where they can deposit cash and have their assets protected, so that they can continue to do the work that is greatly valued in all our communities across Scotland. There is a degree of consensus across Parliament this evening, which is always good to hear. I am sure that we will return to this issue in order to try to get the right solution. 18:02”
“As we have heard, there are clearly banks that are doing the wrong thing, and, as my colleague Claire Baker pointed out, there are banks that are doing the right thing. The Co-operative Bank is based on the values of the co-operative movement, which goes back hundreds of years and has a very proud heritage and history involving organisations such as the Fenwick Weavers Society that were set up by people coming together to create mutual concerns and to own their endeavours together. That sort of banking needs to be prioritised and supported. Although we might call for legislation and intervention in order to regulate the banks—a call that I think has merit—we also need to look at how we support better ways of doing banking, whether that involves the credit union movement, mutuals or whatever.”
“For all the reasons that we have heard outlined by colleagues, what they do not need is banks trying to make a profit off the back of their good endeavours. If we expand on that biblical verse about rendering things to the right place, we can say— rightly, as we have heard articulated in the debate—that taxpayers have rendered to Caesar the money that was paid in to support the banks during the financial crash. Colleagues on this side of the chamber who know Gordon Brown and people like him know that, when he envisaged the plan to rescue the economy back in 2008, the end point was probably not seen as a position in which banks were able to make profits off the backs of charities, many of which he now supports and is involved in across Fife and elsewhere in the country.”
“Having slightly teased Jackie Dunbar about her speech, I will say that later in the gospel of Matthew, Jesus says: “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” People read that in different ways, but what it says to me is that we should let people get on with doing what is God’s work, or what is the common good— that is, the work that charities do—and leave the other bits to the state. That relates to much of what we have covered this evening. At the end of the day, charities do not want to be caught up in having to do overburdensome administration or to be charged simply for doing what is right and good. Charities are playing by the rules. They are doing everything right. They adhere to the rules and regulations of the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator.”
“I recognise that that is a significant challenge for an organisation that was set up principally to be the custodian of the local war memorial and to provide remembrance events, and therefore does not carry a huge amount of money in its bank account, as it is now losing money through the bank charges that are being applied. That is set against a backdrop in which other charities in the community are facing the same problem, and in which the Bank of Scotland has withdrawn its branch in Barrhead—the last bank in the town. That issue has been raised in the chamber on numerous occasions, in concert with colleagues across the country, who are seeing the diminishing of banking services. It is therefore becoming more difficult to operate as a charity.”
“I thank Jackie Dunbar for lodging the motion and for the debate that has ensued. I enjoyed much of her speech—if she does not obtain ministry in the Parliament, there is perhaps a calling to a different type of ministry in her future, given her opening Biblical verse. We are debating a very important issue, as has been articulated by colleagues across the chamber. I declare an interest as a trustee of a charity in Neilston—the Neilston War Memorial Association—that uses banking services, for which it is now being charged by the Bank of Scotland.”
“Of course, building consensus where it can be built is important, but we cannot escape the fact that we have had almost two decades of this governing party, which has made promise after promise and has delayed and deflected, and has not delivered. I move amendment S6M-20956.1, to insert at end: “and that effort should be made to reverse the decline in Scottish scores in international league tables, which has been seen since 2012.” 15:13”
“That is why I have been clear, since I took on the role of shadow education spokesperson for my party, that we have first to deal with order in our classrooms, and give our schools and teachers the support to deal with disruptive behaviour and the high levels of violence and low levels of attendance that are robbing children and young people of the opportunity to learn and putting teachers in an impossible position. There is much that I could say, but my allotted time this afternoon is short. However, colleagues will be delighted to know that I will be closing for my party as well, so they will get another opportunity to hear a Paul O’Kane contribution this afternoon. We have heard a lot this afternoon about reflecting on what we can do in the next session of Parliament.”
“There has been an unacceptable decline in classroom behaviour and a rise in violent incidents in our schools, at the same time as attendance rates have failed to return to pre-Covid levels. Although the current cabinet secretary may not admit it, the reality will be an in-tray of challenges and problems a mile high for whoever comes into Parliament in the role of Government and, more broadly, for those who have to scrutinise that Government.”
“That is the reality, and we have to face it, because there will be people listening to the debate—teachers in our schools, parents of our young people or young people themselves—who are experiencing it daily. Time and again, cabinet secretary after cabinet secretary on the SNP benches has led those people up the garden path, promising them the earth, only for them to find nothing when they get there. The consequences of that lack of action and delivery from the Government are felt acutely. Scotland has fallen down international league tables during the SNP’s time in Government, declining from being the best in the UK in maths, for example, to the second worst. Teachers, if they can find a job at all, are burning out and leaving the profession early at an alarming rate.”
“That came off the back of the broken promise on the poverty-related attainment gap, so we were not exactly starting from a strong position. We could rehearse many of the other broken promises that have littered not just this session of Parliament, but the preceding two decades. There was a promise of universal free school meals so that no child would go hungry—that was delayed and deflected, and not delivered in full. There were the jettisoned manifesto pledges of free iPads and free bikes for all children and young people, which were made with great fanfare at the last election and are sitting in tatters today. For completeness, we should not forget the Government’s previous promises on class sizes, new teachers and non- contact time for teachers, which were all abandoned or undelivered.”
“However, we know that she is heading off into the sunset, so it is perhaps more crucial that we ask ourselves who is still in Parliament who was sitting beside Nicola Sturgeon when she made that commitment. It was the current First Minister who stood beside her as she made those commitments, and he stood there as Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills when he made decisions about the life chances of working-class children and young people in this country and chose to downgrade their exam results in the Covid-19 pandemic. He was the man who promised us, at the beginning of the current session of Parliament, a recovery from Covid. We have heard a lot already today from the Government about Covid and the challenges that it has presented, but we were promised that that recovery would be the priority for this Parliament.”
“I thank Willie Rennie and the Liberal Democrats for bringing today’s debate—which is, I believe, the last education debate of the current session of Parliament—to the chamber and once again using Opposition time to debate these issues. It provides us with an important moment, at the end of this session, to reflect on whether the Government has actually delivered better life chances and opportunities for children and young people and for all learners. However, we should reflect on the fact that not only are we at the end of a five-year session of Parliament, but we have had almost two decades of SNP governance in Scotland. It would be easy for us to reflect solely on the commitment that Nicola Sturgeon made, which we have heard articulated today, and the promises that she made as First Minister.”
“To ask the Scottish Government for what reason it has reportedly reduced the funding it provides to the Mark Scott leadership for life award programme for 2026-27. (S6O-05563)”
“As members will be aware, the Presiding Officer is required under standing orders to decide whether, in her view, any provision of a bill relates to a protected subject matter—that is, whether it modifies the electoral system and franchise for Scottish parliamentary elections. In the case of this bill, the Presiding Officer’s view is that no provision of the Scottish Parliament (Recall of Members) Bill relates to a protected subject matter. Therefore, the bill does not require a supermajority to be passed at stage 3. Scottish Parliament (Recall of Members) Bill”
“Amendment 37 agreed to. Amendment 70 not moved. Long Title Amendment 71 moved—[Sue Webber]—and agreed to. The Deputy Presiding Officer: That ends consideration of amendments. 17:20 Meeting suspended. 17:26 On resuming— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Before we move to the next item of business, members should note that, subsequent to amendment 36 being agreed to, the title of the bill that is the subject of today’s proceedings is now the Scottish Parliament (Recall of Members) Bill. I invite members to note that, in advance of the stage 3 debate on the bill, Graham Simpson lodged a new motion, S6M-20904, on the Scottish Parliament (Recall of Members) Bill at stage 3.”
“For Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) Against Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 84, Against 26, Abstentions 0.”
“Amendment 36 agreed to. Schedule Amendments 68 and 69 not moved. Amendment 37 moved—[Graham Simpson]. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 37 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division For Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) Against Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 83, Against 25, Abstentions 0.”
“Fundamentally, we have access, influence and opportunity to meet vulnerable adults in our surgeries every week and they might, and often do, ask for a private word with us without the ear of our caseworker, particularly on intimate issues such as health, for example. There are also children who seek to access this place for work experience or volunteering opportunities. We cannot just assume that everybody is okay without the one threshold of check that we have available to us, which is a check against the information that is held by Police Scotland in the disclosure regime. I will press amendment 35. Amendment 35 agreed to. Section 32—Short title Amendment 36 moved—[Graham Simpson]. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 36 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No.”
“17:15 Alex Cole-Hamilton: As the bill does not have the scope for the change to the regime that I seek, I have not taken the time to have the full discussions that I would wish to have with representative organisations such as the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and others to give effect to it. However, I have spoken with councillors in my party, and I reflected in my opening remarks on this group of amendments that the nature of the disclosure checks means that councillors, particularly those who are part of the corporate parent or who have inspection duties in the education authority, are subject to the requirements. I will wind up now.”
“Will Alex Cole-Hamilton take an intervention? Alex Cole-Hamilton: I am loving the violent agreement that is being shown, so I am happy to take an intervention. Paul O’Kane: What engagement has Alex Cole- Hamilton had with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on these issues, given that many members in the chamber would have had to have undergone a PVG check when they were councillors? That would not have happened prior to our election or at our nomination as candidates for the council, but it would have happened when we joined the local authority as a member. What engagement has the member had with local authorities on that issue?”
“Legislative power does not rest with the Scottish ministers at the current time, which is not to say that it may not do so in the future. I expect to discuss the issues that Mr O’Kane raises with regard to online behaviour and social media with UK Government ministers on Monday at the interministerial group on child sexual abuse. I am very sympathetic to the proposals that the UK Government has put forward in that regard. However, I recognise that an element of powers here rests in a reserved space, so I will continue to engage with my colleagues in the UK Government. I am happy to give an update on that, following my meeting on Monday. Qualifications Scotland (Learner Interest Committee) 2.”
“We know that there is a clear link between social media use and behaviour. I hear what the cabinet secretary says about her position on mobile phones, although I would ask her to furnish Parliament with further information about why she thinks that there has to be a legislative intervention for her to ban mobile phones in Scotland’s schools. Given that the cabinet secretary has responsibility for child safety and wellbeing, as she referenced in her answer to Stephen Kerr, what is the Scottish Government’s position on the proposals currently under consultation to ban under-16s from social media use, as other countries around the world have done? Jenny Gilruth: What I said about the banning of mobile phones is not something that I think; as a minister, I have commissioned advice on it from my officials.”
“I have just recounted to Mr Cole- Hamilton the fact that we have a significantly lower pupil teacher ratio in Scotland than exists in other parts of the United Kingdom. We have consistently higher numbers of teachers per head of population than in other parts of the UK. I set out in my answer to Roz McCall the steps that the Government has taken to work with local authorities to put in place guidance to support our schools system. I agree with Mr O’Kane on the point where I agreed with Roz McCall: nobody should be exposed to violence at their place of employment. That is why the Government has put in place the guidance and the resources to ensure that that can be realised. Just Transition Plan 6.”